COP28, described as “climate Christmas” by Heatmap Daily last week, does seem to be the gift that keeps on giving. Just not necessarily to the people who were expecting largesse. For instance when the host and chair, Sultan Al Jaber, blurted out that there was “no science out there” to justify phasing out fossil fuels to hold the temperature increase to 1.5°C and demanded: “Show me the roadmap for a phase-out of fossil fuel that will allow for sustainable socioeconomic development, unless you want to take the world back into caves”. Ho ho ho, we say.

Much of the coverage, as you’d expect nowadays, consisted not of journalists telling you what had happened but of journalists telling you how offended they and their friends were. Hence the New York Times “Climate Forward” went with “Al Jaber faces a firestorm over fossil fuels” rather than “Maybe he has a point” or even “Yeah, we made up that 1.5°C thing”. And the writer insisted that:

“Scientists say if temperatures rise more than 1.5 degrees Celsius over preindustrial levels, humans would struggle to adapt to increasingly severe storms, drought, heat and rising sea levels.”

It did not say who the scientists who say are. Everybody knows.

Speaking of friends like these, Al Gore blew his stack at Al Jaber:

“From the moment this absurd masquerade began, it was only a matter of time before his preposterous disguise no longer concealed the reality of the most brazen conflict of interest in the history of climate negotiations. Obviously, the world needs to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible.”

Obviously. Now back to our private jets for the journey home. The piece also said “The planet has already warmed about 1.2 degrees since the industrial revolution, driven by the burning of coal, oil and gas” so it’s gone up another 0.1 degree since the last panic. And you know that how, since you have no temperature measurements at all for most of the globe until the last 50 years? Oh well, um, scientists say.

Climate Home News whimpered:

“Do you find it hard to reconcile the Sultan Al Jaber the climate champion with Sultan Al Jaber the oil chief? So does he, if an unscripted moment reported by the Guardian is anything to go on. In a live event with former UN special envoy Mary Robinson in November, Al Jaber momentarily forgot his PR-approved script and reverted to familiar industry talking points.”

Right. Nobody actually disagrees with us. They just pretend to for money. Such a grown-up view of public policy debates. Though at least they found some “leading scientists” with actual, if suspiciously familiar, names:

“Leading scientists Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Michael Mann wrote Al Jaber an open letter in response. Speaking for the climate system, ‘the most difficult party... which has only red lines and no flexibility,’ they said, ‘humanity needs to phase out fossil fuels by 2050’.”

Speaking for the climate system. Nice work if you can get it. (Though here at CDN we try to speak for the logic system.)

Not to be outdone, the Guardian detonated with “The Cop28 president told a shocking lie about fossil fuels – and he’s wrong about climate economics too”. He didn’t just make a mistake. He lied. All my opponents are consciously evil.

Author Geoffrey Lean, a “specialist environment correspondent and author”, snarled that:

“No sooner had Al Jaber’s remarks become public than the scientific community descended on him, with top experts citing the overwhelming mass of hard evidence establishing the vital need to quit coal, gas and oil.”

Not just experts. Top experts. As in that scene at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, they do not get identified. But top men.

After telling us Net Zero is a great opportunity that “could create 380 million jobs” (unless it doesn’t), and then saying “Opponents of action on climate change have almost entirely stopped denying the science in the face of conclusive evidence” and now “are focusing on claiming that the level of intervention needed would be economically ruinous” (actually we continue to “deny” the science, while pointing out the obvious economics), Lean blurted out that:

“Of course there would be a disastrous crash if the world were to stop burning oil and gas overnight, but nobody sane suggests that. The demand – including from the International Energy Agency, partially established to promote fossil fuels – is to stop opening new fields. It is true, however, that – vital as a phase-out is – we have left things so late that it would not be enough to avoid breaching 1.5C in the next decades. Even an aggressive cutback, studies show, would only save about 0.1C by 2050, partly because carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for a long time.”

So Michael Mann is insane? As quoted above, he said “humanity needs to phase out fossil fuels by 2050”. And he’s not alone. Proponents of Net Zero by 2050 are not just objecting to new oil fields. They want to get rid of oil and gas in the next 27 years and, as Lean and Al Jaber both just said, it would mean living in caves.

People want it anyway. A typical scare story in the Irish News, all full of tipping points and deforestations, 26 tipping points no less, said that “The report authors identify six recommendations” the first of which is “phase out fossil fuels and land emissions well before 2050”. So somebody is talking about it. Though maybe they’re nuts.

Once everybody got into damage control mode over Al Jaber, Climate Home News declared that:

“‘Science has guided my life, Sultan Al Jaber hit back after being accused of denying the scientific consensus that a massive cut-back on fossil fuels is needed to prevent devastating climate impacts. Striking a firm, and at times exasperated, tone, the oil executive-turned-Cop28 president slammed press reports as “misrepresentations”, the result of “statements taken out of context”.”

It’s what they all say. And here, as so often, quite blatantly false. But CHN continued:

“Al Jaber insisted he had said ‘over and over that the phase-down and phase out of fossil fuels is inevitable’. But, ‘how come does this never get picked up [by the media]?’ he asked, appearing to have taken the criticism personally. To reinforce his pro-science credentials, Al Jaber came to the press conference with Jim Skea, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

And Skea himself contradicted Lean, Al Jaber and everybody else:

“To nods from the Cop28 president, Skea said that in 1.5C-compatible scenarios ‘by 2050, fossil fuel use is greatly reduced and unabated coal use is completely phased out.’ He added that oil use by 2050 is reduced by 60% and gas by 45%. Al Jaber, Skea said, was ‘attentive to the science’ and ‘fully understood it’.”

Then in another piece CHN claimed:

“In the early hours of Friday in Dubai, a city surrounded by oil and gas plants, a draft text emerged at Cop28 that opens the possibility of phasing out all fossil fuels. Other options are to ‘phase down’ all fossil fuels, to focus purely on coal or to say nothing at all. The coin is in the air.”

Earlier, David Gelles had written in the New York Times, under the heading “A tense climate summit begins”, that:

“With warnings of planetary catastrophe and pleas to protect vulnerable populations, world leaders implored each other today to stop burning fossil fuels and swiftly reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are dangerously heating the planet.”

So if nobody sane is talking about ditching fossil fuels, there must be a lot of crazies at COP28. As we suspected all along.

As to the economics, um yes well never mind the caves. Though Lean should also stay away from that field lest somebody lose a credibility. He rants that:

“Britain has reduced carbon emissions by 44% since 1990, while growing by 78%. Its green economy, yet another study concluded, is already nearly four times bigger than manufacturing, providing more than 1.2 million jobs.”

But most of that drop was due to Margaret Thatcher’s decision in the late 1980s to shut down uneconomic coal mines and the power plants they supplied, and develop North Sea gas as an alternative. Other than that one-time decision, what is Britain’s “green economy”? Something other than its actual economy? Surely the idea is for everything to be green. Shouldn’t there be “green” manufacturing and the brown stuff, not making things over here and green vapour over there? Unless of course the plan is to ditch fossil fuels and all live in caves, with the “green economy” being the moss we’re sleeping on and eating.